Saturn VS Honda

DAW wrote:
> Buy a VUE V6 which has Honda V-Tech engine. Best of both worlds (sort
of).
>
> "Blue Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I drive a 1997 Civic, never any problem other than replace timing
belt,
> > tires etc. Now have 180,000 miles and considering a Saturn.
Honda gets
> > about 36 MPG, Could I expect the miles and this type of problem
free
> > driving
> > with a Saturn?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
> >
> >

David wrote:

> We have a 2000 Saturn LS2 (SAAB V6 and 400 lb 4-speed auto) and 2
> Chevys with 3100 V6 and 4-speed autos. We mostly just drive; repairs
> are few and far between. Can't find anything to fix on the 2000
> Malibu or the Corsica (with 250,000 km on it).

According to all the usual industry surveys, the Malibu is actually the most
reliable car sold in N. America -- even better than a Corolla or Civic. Then
again all of 'em are pretty good these days. Personally, I'd rather have
something with better seats, like a Saturn.

Matt O.

Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:

> I got about 32mpg on a recent trip in my new 2004 Saturn coupe and
> that was in rather hilly terrain at 75-80mph (cruise control on most
> of the trip between Irvine CA and Laughlin NV ), so it isn't that
> bad. If the original poster wants to look at getting an ION he should
> definately consider the leather interior, it makes a huge difference
> as far as comfort and overall feel of the car.

32 MPG on the open road in a modern small car simply stinks. A Corolla or Civic
will do nearly 40. A BMW 3 Series can do 34 MPG, despite being much larger and
heavier, and having 50% more horsepower. Heck, my '85 325e with over 300k on it
did that well. The ION has not advanced technologically at all since the
original S-Series.

> This is my 3rd Saturn and I have never had a speck of trouble with any
> of them, a very reliable car IMHO.

We've had 3 in our family too, and they've been mostly trouble free. The only
problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every 70k like clockwork,
and window regulators on an L-Series. Lots of others seem to have the same
problems. At least the alternators were cheap to fix, probably half the cost of
other makes'.

>> Most cars will go 300k with little trouble these days. I'd just
>> keep the Honda until it looks and feels so shabby you can't stand it
>> any more.

> Or starts belching blue smoke as Hondas tend to do after awhile.

Just from reading these boards I've learned that Saturns are the oil burning
champs of the modern age. My brother's dealership (where he worked for 3 years)
has seen the same thing. While there are many S-cars with half a million miles
on them, there are also plenty that needed new engines. The new engines in the
ION are probably better -- I hope so.

I still think Saturn has lost its edge. The competition is better these days,
even for the money. If you need a larger car, you can still score a great deal
on an L.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole writes:

> The only problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every
> 70k like clockwork, and window regulators on an L-Series.

Yep; I've had to replace the driver's side (most frequently used)
window regulator, and I've replaced the battery twice now, with the
service advisor claiming that the "generator" was also bad and had
to be replaced (both times). The second time was too coincidental
for my tastes, so I demanded to see the evidence that the "generator"
was bad. Voltage was okay, diode was okay, and output current seemed
okay, though I don't have a good feeling for how high it should be.
At any rate, I decided against replacing the "generator". Service
advisor warned me that I'd just drain the new battery, and even
put it in writing on the service order. Here I am, a year later,
still running with that allegedly bad "generator". Battery hasn't
been drained at all.

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>
>
> 32 MPG on the open road in a modern small car simply stinks. A Corolla or
Civic
> will do nearly 40. A BMW 3 Series can do 34 MPG, despite being much
larger and
> heavier, and having 50% more horsepower. Heck, my '85 325e with over 300k
on it
> did that well. The ION has not advanced technologically at all since the
> original S-Series.

I thought mileage was more a function of weight and aerodynamics rather than
technology. The ION is more than 300 pounds heaver than the S, and bigger,
so it seems obvious that it would get worse milage.



>
> We've had 3 in our family too, and they've been mostly trouble free. The
only
> problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every 70k like
clockwork,

70 ? boy are you lucky. I only got 31 on each of my first 2.



>
> Just from reading these boards I've learned that Saturns are the oil
burning
> champs of the modern age. My brother's dealership (where he worked for 3
years)
> has seen the same thing. While there are many S-cars with half a million
miles
> on them, there are also plenty that needed new engines. The new engines
in the
> ION are probably better -- I hope so.

I though the problem was the rings rather than the engine in general. Anyone
know if Saturn is using better rings these days?

>
> I still think Saturn has lost its edge.

It sort of looks like the S was beginers luck, Although I sort of regret not
getting an 4 cylinder L wagon.

> Matt O.
>
>

In article >,
says...
>
> "Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
> >
> >
> > 32 MPG on the open road in a modern small car simply stinks. A Corolla or
> Civic
> > will do nearly 40. A BMW 3 Series can do 34 MPG, despite being much
> larger and
> > heavier, and having 50% more horsepower. Heck, my '85 325e with over 300k
> on it
> > did that well. The ION has not advanced technologically at all since the
> > original S-Series.
>
> I thought mileage was more a function of weight and aerodynamics rather than
> technology. The ION is more than 300 pounds heaver than the S, and bigger,
> so it seems obvious that it would get worse milage.

You can stick that Ecotec in a Fiero with a manual trans and get over
45 mpg easy. Small engines in big cars or high drag cars can get
overworked. Big engines in small cars hardly get worked. There is a
balance that must be met for longevity and MPG. So a small engine in a
small car is good for mpg and a big engine for a big car is good for
mpg.
There are many factors in MPG but people dont tell you all of them when
they claim "this is what I get". Ok so the question becomes is it a
manual or auto? Is it a coupe or sedan? Do you drive doing the speed
limit or do you run 80mph? Do you wax it or not? Are you 130 lbs or are
you 300 lbs? Are you the only one in the car or do you have 3 other fat
people riding with you? Do you live in the mountains or flat lands? Do
you have the trunk loaded down with junk or ....... You get the point.
Not everything gets posted to a newsgroup.


> > We've had 3 in our family too, and they've been mostly trouble free. The
> only
> > problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every 70k like
> clockwork,
>
> 70 ? boy are you lucky. I only got 31 on each of my first 2.

This has more to with habits IMO. You batteries become to discharged.


> > Just from reading these boards I've learned that Saturns are the oil
> burning
> > champs of the modern age. My brother's dealership (where he worked for 3
> years)
> > has seen the same thing. While there are many S-cars with half a million
> miles
> > on them, there are also plenty that needed new engines. The new engines
> in the
> > ION are probably better -- I hope so.
>
> I though the problem was the rings rather than the engine in general. Anyone
> know if Saturn is using better rings these days?

Ok... First off. THE ECOTEC IS NOT THE OLD 1.9L! It has NOTHING to do
with the previous 4cyl. Just because an engine burns oil it doesnt mean
REPLACE IT! With the 1.9 it means your oil rings are either gummed up or
loss their tension. Also Saturn does not "BUILD" engines. They are all
outsourced. The Ecotecs and the 3.0's are German Opel based engines, the
1.9's originate from England. England has almost always built
cars/engines that had to be "tinkered" with like MG's. The later 1.9
(not sure at which point) dont have the ring problems iirc and not all
the older 1.9 burn oil. The Ecotecs are by far probably the best 4
cylinders on the market now.



> > I still think Saturn has lost its edge.
>
> It sort of looks like the S was beginers luck, Although I sort of regret not
> getting an 4 cylinder L wagon.

So long as you got one with a manual trans but I cant recall any L300's
with manuals. A automatic L Wagon would overwork that 4cyl I would
think.

Btw I have a car that probably totalled 4000lbs on a recent trip that
has a 205hp 3800 II engine that got 28mpg running mostly 75mph. I
consider that more than acceptable given the weight, speed, and ever
increasing hilly terrain towards the destination.

Blah blah > wrote:


>> > We've had 3 in our family too, and they've been mostly trouble free. The
>> only
>> > problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every 70k like
>> clockwork,
>>
>> 70 ? boy are you lucky. I only got 31 on each of my first 2.
>
>This has more to with habits IMO. You batteries become to discharged.
>

What kind of habits? My '93 SL2 with 137K miles never needed an
alternator replacement. Replaced 2 batteries over 11 years. Are you
saying failed alternators are a result of frequent heavy use of the
battery without the car running?

>... the older 1.9 burn oil. The Ecotecs are by far probably the best 4
>cylinders on the market now.
>
As a 1.9L oil burner lottery loser, and new owner of an ION2, that's
good to hear.

Bill Davis

In article >, Bill Davis <>
wrote:

> What kind of habits? My '93 SL2 with 137K miles never needed an
> alternator replacement. Replaced 2 batteries over 11 years. Are you
> saying failed alternators are a result of frequent heavy use of the
> battery without the car running?

Or frequent driving with bad batteries. Few look at the battery as a
'wear item', and fewer replace it on a regular schedule, though there's
convincing evidence that it's at least somewhat useful on saturns

I don't think Saturn alternators are any more/less defective than any
other GM ones, rather that they're marginal for the application.

> As a 1.9L oil burner lottery loser, and new owner of an ION2, that's
> good to hear.

Beats me - mine leaks more oil than it burns. Some 1.9s were actually
decent, I guess. Or, built on a wednesday?

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:28:23 -0500, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:

>Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>
>> I got about 32mpg on a recent trip in my new 2004 Saturn coupe and
>> that was in rather hilly terrain at 75-80mph (cruise control on most
>> of the trip between Irvine CA and Laughlin NV ), so it isn't that
>> bad. If the original poster wants to look at getting an ION he should
>> definately consider the leather interior, it makes a huge difference
>> as far as comfort and overall feel of the car.
>
>32 MPG on the open road in a modern small car simply stinks. A Corolla or Civic
>will do nearly 40. A BMW 3 Series can do 34 MPG, despite being much larger and
>heavier, and having 50% more horsepower. Heck, my '85 325e with over 300k on it
>did that well. The ION has not advanced technologically at all since the
>original S-Series.
>
You have obviously never driven in California. You climb to 5000ft,
then go down a bit and then up another 1000ft down to 900ft etc. all
at 80+ mph, 32mpg is pretty good. Maybe if driving in, say Iowa or
Michigan it might not be good to get 32mpg but it's pretty good in
California.

>> This is my 3rd Saturn and I have never had a speck of trouble with any
>> of them, a very reliable car IMHO.
>
>We've had 3 in our family too, and they've been mostly trouble free. The only
>problem we've all had were alternators, which go out every 70k like clockwork,
>and window regulators on an L-Series. Lots of others seem to have the same
>problems. At least the alternators were cheap to fix, probably half the cost of
>other makes'.
>
>>> Most cars will go 300k with little trouble these days. I'd just
>>> keep the Honda until it looks and feels so shabby you can't stand it
>>> any more.
>
>> Or starts belching blue smoke as Hondas tend to do after awhile.
>
>Just from reading these boards I've learned that Saturns are the oil burning
>champs of the modern age. My brother's dealership (where he worked for 3 years)
>has seen the same thing. While there are many S-cars with half a million miles
>on them, there are also plenty that needed new engines. The new engines in the
>ION are probably better -- I hope so.

I have never seen a Saturn belch blue smoke, or one stuck at the side
of the road. Fords and Jaguars seem to have a lock on that.

>
>I still think Saturn has lost its edge. The competition is better these days,
>even for the money. If you need a larger car, you can still score a great deal
>on an L.
I have no complaints. I liked my L-series but the leasing company
wanted too much money for me to purchase it at the end of the lease
and I couldn't get an L with leather interior. What actually lead me
to the L-series to begin with was the trunk, the S just didn't have a
big enough trunk. The ION is pretty decent in that respect.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:06:18 GMT, Blah blah > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> "Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 32 MPG on the open road in a modern small car simply stinks. A Corolla or
>> Civic
>> > will do nearly 40. A BMW 3 Series can do 34 MPG, despite being much
>> larger and
>> > heavier, and having 50% more horsepower. Heck, my '85 325e with over 300k
>> on it
>> > did that well. The ION has not advanced technologically at all since the
>> > original S-Series.
>>
>> I thought mileage was more a function of weight and aerodynamics rather than
>> technology. The ION is more than 300 pounds heaver than the S, and bigger,
>> so it seems obvious that it would get worse milage.
>
> You can stick that Ecotec in a Fiero with a manual trans and get over
>45 mpg easy. Small engines in big cars or high drag cars can get
>overworked. Big engines in small cars hardly get worked. There is a
>balance that must be met for longevity and MPG. So a small engine in a
>small car is good for mpg and a big engine for a big car is good for
>mpg.
> There are many factors in MPG but people dont tell you all of them when
>they claim "this is what I get". Ok so the question becomes is it a
>manual or auto? Is it a coupe or sedan? Do you drive doing the speed
>limit or do you run 80mph? Do you wax it or not? Are you 130 lbs or are
>you 300 lbs? Are you the only one in the car or do you have 3 other fat
>people riding with you? Do you live in the mountains or flat lands? Do
>you have the trunk loaded down with junk or ....... You get the point.
>Not everything gets posted to a newsgroup.
>
>SNIP>>>>>>>>
To be fair I don't think that Matt O'Toole comprehended the fact that
I was driving in mountains at 75-80mph. The trip from Irvine CA to
Laughlin NV is up (I guess the max is about 4500-5000ft and the min is
900ft) and down for 300 miles, most of it highway, but (and anybody
that has made the trip can say) there is also some stop and go as you
fight your way out of Southern California along the 91 freeway. I
thought 32mpg was pretty good. I had my wife and a suitcase in the
car.